The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1887-12-01
Objections to Reciprocity.
Ftom De Philaeelphia Record

Tue fullE-elpllh heCOlQ.
Commercial union with Canada is a bird
still in the egg. There is no certainty
when it will break the shell: but,as means
of smoothing away the contention about
the fisheries, the time for its appearance is
propitious, and the discussion of the mat
ter interesting. As the argument pro-
ceeds, however, It is becoming apparent
that the force of the ultra-protectionists
in both countries will be arrsyed against
any settlement of the fisheries dispute by
trade reciprocity. Some of the high tariff
reasoning is based upon very fimsy
grounds, even from the standpoint of
protection. For example, it has been as
serted that the extension of the protected
area by the assimilation of the Canadian
and United States tariffs would weaken
the spirit of protection, because the
greater the number of manufacturing
centers the less protective tariff would
be worth to any one of them. This is
equivalent to saying that, by extending our
home market over an area as large as our
own territory, and enclosing it with our
tariff wall, We should injure ourselves. The
statement contains its own refutation. The
protected infant industries in this coun
try need nothing so much as to be IN
coOped and allowed to spread themselves
in country where they cannot be con-
frOnted with free competition.
Of like character is the argument that
commercial union would be one sided
arrangement, because it would afford the
Canadians a market in a country of sixty
million inhabitants as against return
market in a country of five million in
habitants. This position rests on the re-
marksble assumption that trade,to be re-
ciprocslly advantageous, should be carried
on between countries of equal population
and resources. If true, it would prove
that the trade between Rhode Island and
Massachusetts, and between Delaware and
Pennsylvania involved some sort of dis
advantage to the larger states.
1t has been further urged that, if COM
mercial union should be agreed upon,
English capital and plant would be taken
into Canada, and manufactures estab
lished to the detriment of like enterprises
in the United States. This is a silly con-
tsntion. 1t is entirely possible that
English capital would be attracted
to Canada, but only in for
warding enterprises which could
be more proftably carried on there than
in the United States. This would be to
the advantage of the people of the United
States, who would get the benefit of
Canadian development. Besides, there is
nothing to prevent the bringing of Eng
lish capital and plant into the United
States and monopolizing SO much of our
market for any species of manufacturing
as the superiority of the product should
determine. Capital will flow to the To-
cslity where investment brings the best
return. Englishmen, If reciprocity should
be established, would probably go to
Canada to make lumber or catch mack
erel; they would also probably go to Geor-
gia to build cotton mills, to Alabama to
make iron, and to Florida to raise oranges.
Until protectionist ingenuity shall de-
wise some stronger reasons for stretching
line of custom houses across the con-
tinent, from Maine to Oregon, the interest
in the scheme of trade reciprocity will
continue to gain adherents.